Paper Review

A systematic approach to self-reviewing academic papers before submission. Covers a 5-aspect review checklist, reverse-outlining for structural clarity, figure/table quality checks, and rebuttal preparation.

When to Use This Skill

User wants to review or check a paper draft before submission
User asks for feedback on paper quality or completeness
User wants to prepare for potential reviewer criticism
User mentions "review paper", "check my draft", "self-review"

If the user has already received reviewer comments and needs to write a rebuttal, use the paper-rebuttal skill instead.

Prerequisites

Before starting review, confirm the paper-writing handoff checklist is satisfied: all sections drafted, claims anchored to evidence, limitation section present, figures finalized, and no unresolved \todo{} markers. If any item is incomplete, finish writing before reviewing.

The Perfectionist Approach

Strive for perfection: review your own paper, consider every question a reviewer might ask, and address them one by one.

The best defense against negative reviews is a thorough self-review:

Adversarial review: Read your own paper as a critical reviewer would
Seek advisor feedback: Ask your advisor to review — the more feedback, the better
Address everything: For every potential weakness you find, either fix it or prepare a defense

Counterintuitive Review Protocol

Run this protocol before final polishing:

Reject-first simulation: Force yourself to write a one-paragraph reject summary before writing any positive comments.
Delete one unsupported strong claim: If a strong claim lacks direct evidence, remove it instead of defending it.
Score trust, not only score gains: Papers with slightly lower gains but higher fairness and reproducibility often receive better review outcomes.
Promote one explicit limitation: Move one meaningful limitation from hidden notes into the paper; transparency can increase confidence.
Attack your novelty claim: Ask "Could a strong PhD derive this in one afternoon?" If yes, narrow and sharpen the novelty statement.

See references/counterintuitive-review.md

5-Aspect Self-Review Checklist

Aspect 1: Contribution Sufficiency

The paper does not provide readers with new knowledge.

Ask these questions to evaluate whether the contribution is sufficient:

Are the failure cases common? If the failure cases are frequent and obvious, reviewers may question whether the method is ready for publication.
Is the proposed technique well-explored? If the technique is already widely studied, what new insight or improvement do we bring?
Is the improvement foreseeable / well-known? If the improvement was predictable from combining known ideas, the novelty may be questioned.
Is the technique too straightforward? A straightforward application of existing techniques may lack sufficient contribution.

Red flag: If "yes" to any of these, strengthen the contribution narrative or add more technical depth.

Aspect 2: Writing Clarity

Missing technical details, not reproducible; a method module lacks motivation.

Missing technical details? Would a reader be able to reproduce the method from the paper alone?
Missing module motivation? Does every module in the Method section explain why it exists, not just what it does?
Paragraph structure: Does each paragraph have a clear topic? Does the first sentence state the point?
Flow: Is the logical flow between paragraphs and sections smooth?
Terminology: Are terms used consistently throughout?

Red flag: If reproducibility is in doubt, add implementation details or supplementary material.

Aspect 3: Experimental Results Quality

Only slightly better than previous methods; or better than previous methods but still not good enough.

Marginal improvement? If the improvement over SOTA is very small, is it statistically significant?
Absolute quality insufficient? Even if better than baselines, is the output quality good enough for the application?
Visual quality: Do qualitative results look convincing? Are improvements visible?

Red flag: If improvements are marginal, emphasize other advantages (speed, generalizability, simplicity) or add more challenging test cases.

Aspect 4: Experimental Testing Completeness

Missing ablation studies; missing important baselines; missing important evaluation metrics; data too simple.

Missing ablation studies? Is every core contribution ablated?
Missing important baselines? Are recent SOTA methods included?
Missing evaluation metrics? Are all standard metrics for this task reported?
Datasets too simple? Do the benchmarks truly test the method's capabilities?
No failure case analysis? Honest failure analysis increases credibility.

Red flag: Missing ablations or baselines is one of the most common reasons for rejection.

Aspect 5: Method Design Issues

Experimental setting is impractical; method has technical flaws; method is not robust; new method's costs outweigh its benefits.

Impractical experimental setting? Are assumptions realistic for the intended use case?
Technical flaws? Does the method have theoretical or conceptual weaknesses?
Not robust? Does the method require per-scene hyperparameter tuning?
Benefit < Limitation? Does the new module introduce limitations that outweigh its benefits?

Red flag: If the method requires significant tuning per scenario, add robustness experiments or acknowledge and address the limitation.

Critical Reminder: Claims Must Have Support

Every claim in the paper (especially in the Abstract and Introduction) must be correct and supported by experiments. Some reviewers will reject a paper directly for unsupported claims.

Go through every claim in the Abstract and Introduction. For each claim:

Is it factually correct?
Is there an experiment or analysis that supports it?
Is the supporting experiment clearly referenced?

An unsupported claim — especially in the Abstract or Introduction — can be grounds for rejection.

Reverse-Outlining Technique

Extract the writing plan from finished paragraphs and check whether the flow is smooth.

After writing a section (or the entire paper):

Read each paragraph one at a time
Write down the main message of each paragraph in one sentence
Read the sequence of messages — does it flow logically?
Identify breaks: Where does the flow feel abrupt or illogical?
Fix: Reorganize paragraphs, add transitions, or split/merge paragraphs

Apply this to:

Introduction (check narrative flow)
Method (check if modules are presented in logical order)
Experiments (check if results are presented in a meaningful sequence)

Figure and Table Quality Checklist

Figures

Pipeline figure highlights novelty (not just explanation)
Pipeline figure looks distinct from prior work
Teaser figure is compelling and self-contained
All figures have clear captions
Resolution is high enough for print
Color-blind friendly (avoid red-green only distinctions)
Figures are referenced in the text

Tables

Captions are above the table
No vertical lines
Using booktabs (\toprule, \midrule, \bottomrule)
Best results highlighted (bold/color)
Metric direction indicated (↑/↓)
Captions describe setup/notation, not results
All tables are referenced in the text

Conclusion and Limitation Check

Conclusion summarizes contributions and key results
Limitation section is present (reviewers frequently flag its absence)
Limitations are about task/setting scope (like future work), not technical defects

Rule: "If our method does not fall below SOTA metrics, it is not a technical defect"
Limitations are honest but not self-defeating

Pre-Submission Final Checks

Handoff to Rebuttal

When reviews come back, use the paper-rebuttal skill for:

Score diagnosis and review color-coding
Champion strategy (arming your positive reviewer for discussion)
18 tactical rules for structure, content, and tone
Counterintuitive rebuttal principles

Your self-review artifacts (reject-first simulation, claim-evidence audit, prebuttal drafts from the counterintuitive protocol) feed directly into the rebuttal process.

See references/review-checklist.md for an expanded version of the 5-aspect checklist with more detailed sub-questions.

For adversarial stress testing and reject-risk thresholds, see references/counterintuitive-review.md.

paper-review